This revision petition under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with section 482 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 15.5.99 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Manipur East, Shri Th Sudhir Singh (under suspension) in Criminal Misc (Bail) Case No.34 of 1999 in connection with FIR Case No.287 Mehrauli, PS, Delhi under sections 302, 212, 201, 120B/34 IPC in exercise of power under section 438 of the Code thereby granting pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner. At the outset, I must observe that in the note of Registry dated 20.9.99 it is indicated that the service report upon the respondent has been returned after duly served, however, none appear on behalf of the respondent.

2.1 have heard'Mr. T. Nanda Kumar, learned Advocate General on behalf of the State of Manipur assisted by Mr. Mohendro.

3. Facts giving rise to the filing of the present revision petition is interesting and worth to be noted briefly. It is stated that on 30.4.99 the respondent along with 3 (three) other accused went to Tamarind cafe of Kutub Collonade, Delhi in which the deceased Ms Jessica Lal worked as a Bar Attendant. A firing incident on took place resulting the death of Ms Jessica Lal involving the respondent and 3 accused. It is stated that immediately after the occurrence the respondent along with 2 accused ran away from the place of occurrence by driving Tata Sierra bearing registration No. MP-04-V-2634. Mehrauli Police Station, Delhi registered a case being FIR Case No 287/99 under sections 302, 212, 201, 120B and 34 IPC (popularly known as Jessica Lal murder case). In course of investigation accused Manu Sharma was arrested on 6.5.99 and accused Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony and Alok Khanna were arrested on 5.5.99. On their interrogation, it came to light that the present respondent along with 3 accused were responsible in killing Jessica Lal on the fateful day. However, the respondent could not be apprehended as he was absconding. It appear from the police report that the present respondent also filed an application dated 15.5.99 under section 438 of the Code praying for pre-arrest bail before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, New Delhi, subsequently withdrawn on 17.5.99. On 15.5.99 respondent also filed a bail application registered as Criminal Misc (B) Case No. 34 of 1999 under section 438 of the Code for granting pre-arrest bail before the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Manipur East stating inter-alia that he is running a business at Thangal Bazar and also residing at Thangal Bazar which subsequently proved to be false. By the impugned order dated 15.5.99, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Manipur East Shri Th. Sudhir Singh (under suspension) granted pre-arrest bail for a period of 2 (two) months. Hence the petition.

4. Following contentions have been raised by the learned' Advocate General, Manipur:

(a) The learned Sessions Judge, Manipur East has no jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail inasmuch as the occurrence took place at Delhi within the territorial jurisdiction of Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi and the accused is not a resident of any place within the territorial jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, Manipur East.

(b) The learned Sessions Judge, Manipur East passed the impugned order without calling any report from the State of Manipur /DGP Manipjur or Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and the Police officials of Mehrauli within whose local jurisdiction the crime was committed!

(c) The impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur East

is not sustainable as the learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order by relying on the provision of section 81 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inasmuch as section 81 speaks about post-arrest bail and this provision would not be available in respect of pre-arrest bail.

5. The sole question that posed for determination is whether any High Court or any Court of S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document